Discuss the Impact of John’s Reign on England

Discuss the impact of John’s reign on England

King John has gone down in history as one of, if not the, worst monarchs in English history, based on the records of his contemporary chroniclers, such as Matthew Paris who wrote ‘Foul as it is, Hell itself is befouled by the foulness of John.’ Many historians through the ages agreed that, despite his short reign from 1199 to 1216, he was both personally flawed and a bad king; Norgate speaks of his ‘superhuman wickedness’. However more recently the historiography surrounding his reign has been challenged, and more positive analysis of John is coming to the fore, such as Warren, with his description of John’s reign: ‘a tour de force of personal monarchy... [that] John’s government was vibrant and forward-thinking’. Thus it is essential to be wary of the various views of John when examining the impact of his reign on England, and the discussion may actually answer the question as to how he should be remembered. In order to do examine the impact of the reign, the following factors must be considered: the breakdown in relations with his barons and his personality, the loss of Normandy, his government and the finances of his reign, his relationship with the Church, military events and finally, what is perhaps the most famous development of John’s reign, Magna Carta.

John alienated many people throughout his reign, particularly his barons; however it is important to examine at whether it was John’s personality that did this, and therefore had a great impact on his reign, or the Angevin despotism that had been growing since the beginning of the dynasty. Opinion is divided: Warren supports the latter, calling him a ‘petty tyrant’, whilst Painter and Purser emphasise his ‘suspicious’ character. His personality would have had a huge impact on his reign in a time of personal monarchy. In terms of breakdowns in relations, there were three defining factors that made John such a symbol if ill-repute: his marriage to Isabelle of Angouleme, his murder of his nephew, Arthur of Brittany and his own personality. Isabelle of Angouleme was heiress of Count Ademar of Angouleme; John may have imagined her as his very own ‘Eleanor’, as with their marriage would come large amounts of land in France. However she was already betrothed to Hugh of Lusignan, as good as married, and also very young. Yet for the advantage he decided to marry her, which was not unreasonable, however he did not provide Hugh with compensation, which angered Hugh greatly. He appealed to King Philip as his overlord, giving Philip a reason to summon John to court; John did not answer. Philip deprived England of all lands held from the French crown and prepared for war. All John had to do was to appease Hugh of Lusignan, or answer Philip’s summons and he did neither, creating a reason for Philip to become aggressive and losing support of the barons of Poitou. The impact was grave. In 1202, John’s mother, Eleanor, was besieged by a rival: John’s nephew, Arthur. John relieved her, capturing Arthur, Hugh and many other prisoners: 22 died under harsh imprisonment. John also had Arthur stabbed and drowned, which was horrendous and removed any of John’s moral authority; it was a sordid and illegal, when John could have legally trialled him for treason. Much of the barons trust would be lost here, and so again John’s personality seems to have undermined him. His character was arguably flawed, he was suspicious and had an inability to manage others; he was even accused of coercing barons’ wives and widows into illicit relations. This kind of behaviour lead to him falling out with even his most trusted men: William de Braose defaulted on an unrealistically large fine, John hounded him out of England. De Braose died, and his wife and son starved soon after. The impact of all these events is evident: barons refused to fight for their king in 1205 and 1213, either paying the scutage instead or simply ignoring him; some this was arguably treacherous. This had a huge impact, as John lost momentum in his military endeavours which, ultimately, failed and lead to other problems. Warren wrote he had ‘the mental capabilities of a great king, but the inclinations of a petty tyrant.’ It was not what John did, as we will see he often made decent decisions, but it was how he did it that riled his barons so.

By August 1204, John had lost Normandy to the powerful Philip Augustus, effectively ending England’s physical presence on the continent, and this undoubtedly had a great impact during his reign. However it was not only the loss of Normandy, but also John’s absolute fixation with taking it back that was felt so; a reasonable, yet arguably fatal, sentiment for a medieval ruler who wanted to preserve the integrity of his patrimony. In order to feed this obsession, John needed men and funds. This was to be incredibly problematic when exacted on an England in financial strain following Richard’s reign of expensive ransoms, royal castles and foreign campaigns. The loss of Normandy had several implications: a loss of face for John and the country, it ensured John’s presence in England, but critically it lead to increased financial pressure on the baronage, and therefore poor relations with them. John would have come under pressure if he did not attempt to retake his patrimony, and so it was not entirely his fault, but it is the way in which he attempted to do so which had such a dramatic and negative impact.

John was English; he was born in England, educated by Henry II’s chief administrator, Ranulf de Glanville, and so fluent in English. He was the first resident King of England in 133 years. This, combined with John’s overzealous government and the financial pressure created by the situation in France, had a great impact on England; the barons were simply not used to this kind of rule. As John was constantly in England, he often personally administered the justice, and so if a vassal felt unfairly treated by the law, because John was in the country, the negativity would be associated with him; John sent chief justiciars to oversee courts around the country; one such justiciar he sent North, and he happened to be quite harsh in his administering of the King’s justice, and so further alienated the barons who associated him with John. He also exploited the judicial system in order to gain more revenues: Norgate wrote his reign was an ‘engine of royal extortion, oppression and tyranny.’ Financially, John simply made matters worse because of events in Normandy; he ‘bullied’ barons for military service and money; many fell into great debt. He enforced his feudal rights by levying various taxes such as the scutage (11 times) and inheritance taxes, and took extortionate arbitrary reliefs; for example a 10,000 mark inheritance relief was levied on Nicholas Stuteville, and there was the aforementioned relief on Braose. These demands were too much for the country to bear. This was a key cause of the baronial revolt of 1215, which was, as Holt put it, ‘a rebellion of the King’s debtors.’ The fact that this problem in particular was so important in terms of an impact can be seen in Magna Carta, where there are specific clauses addressing excessive taxation (12 and 14). Yet these impacts may not be solely down to John and his reign, as the idea of Angevin despotism preceded him. Both Henry I and Henry II were above the law; all kings were. John was acting no differently than them, however he was in England and did take a keen interest in running affairs himself, more so than his ancestors. The country’s financial issues were more due to Richard than John, and the rapid and general rise in prices that was part of his reign was also out of his control; however each of these lead to other impacts on England.

...